Bressler Risk Blog

Associate professors Alan B. Clements and Catherine Cleaveland at Kennesaw State University have published an in depth analysis of the landscape and risks facing multidisciplinary account/lawyer practices, worth reading in full for those looking to go into even greater depth: “Blurring the Lines: Multidisciplinary Practice Challenges for CPA Firms” —

• “As CPA firms increasingly seek to provide integrated legal and advisory services, they face a complex web of ethical, legal, and regulatory constraints limiting their ability to operate as true multidisciplinary practices. These barriers stem from a foundational and unresolved conflict between the lawyer’s duty of zealous client advocacy and the auditor’s duty of independence and professional skepticism.
• “The article compares traditional rules with newer experimental frameworks that permit multidisciplinary service delivery through regulatory sandboxes and alternative business structures. It also explores workaround strategies—such as parallel firm models and use of legal consultants—and evaluates the risks these structures may create in this evolving landscape.”
• “For decades, CPAs and attorneys have operated in separate professional silos, each bound by distinct ethical, regulatory, and licensing frameworks. In a world where speed and integration drive business decisions, clients no longer want to juggle multiple advisors: they want solutions, not silos. Whether navigating a merger, responding to regulatory scrutiny, or planning for succession, clients increasingly expect a single team that can handle legal, tax, and financial dimensions. Under a multidisciplinary practice (MDP) model, lawyers, accountants, and consultants collaborate to offer seamless strategic advice.”
• “But as CPA firms explore these one-stop-shop models, they encounter a patchwork of legal and ethical restrictions that complicate and, in many cases, obstruct their path. Rules prohibiting fee-sharing between lawyers and nonlawyers, concerns over attorney-client privilege, and strict definitions of the unauthorized practice of law (UPL) create high-stakes compliance and liability risks.”
• “Even as these barriers persist, the ground is shifting. A growing movement is challenging the long-standing structural rules that have kept the legal and accounting professions apart. At the forefront are the Big Four public accounting firms—PwC, Deloitte, EY, and KPMG—which already offer integrated legal services abroad under more flexible regulatory regimes [e.g., the United Kingdom, Australia, and parts of the EU, where Alternative Business Structures (ABS) are permitted]. These firms are pressing for similar flexibility in the United States, arguing that current restrictions hinder innovation and deny clients the benefits of fully integrated, cross-disciplinary solutions.”
• In February 2025, Arizona’s Supreme Court gave KPMG final clearance to set up a law practice, making the firm the first of the Big Four to do so anywhere in the United States (Mark Maurer, ‘KPMG to Launch US Law Firm Following Court Approval,’ Wall Street Journal, Feb. 27, 2025, https://tinyurl.com/5945bk6e). They are joined by legal technology startups, corporate legal departments, and access-to-justice advocates, all of whom see regulatory reform as essential to modernizing service delivery, expanding access, and responding to the changing needs of clients. Jessica Bednarz has documented legal regulation initiatives in Utah and other states (Unlocking Legal Regulation: Lessons Learned and Recommendations for the Future, Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System, April 2021). From experimental regulatory sandboxes in Utah to bold licensing reforms in Arizona, the movement for multidisciplinary practice is gaining traction and may soon reshape the professional boundaries that have defined CPA and legal practice for decades (Marilyn Cavicchia, Making Sense of a Shifting Landscape: Sandboxes, Alternative Business Structures, and Regulatory Change, ABA Bar Leader, Sep. 1, 2021).”
  The Regulatory Wall: Core Ethical and Legal Barriers in the United States”
  The foundational divide: advocacy vs. independence.”
• “Before examining the specific rules that create barriers for multidisciplinary practices, it is essential to understand the fundamental philosophical conflict between the duties of lawyers and the duties of auditors. This conceptual divide is the source of many of the regulatory walls that follow.”
• “A lawyer’s ethical obligation is one of undivided loyalty and zealous advocacy for a client’s interests. Whether in contract negotiations or a legal dispute, a lawyer is duty-bound to support and advance the client’s position. This duty is reflected in a client’s own recording and reporting of its financial standing. By contrast, an auditor’s primary duty is to the public trust, which requires independence and professional skepticism regarding a client’s financial information. Auditors are explicitly barred from taking positions of advocacy or, colloquially, ‘auditing their own work.’ This inherent conflict—a lawyer advocating for a client’s position versus an auditor independently scrutinizing that same position—has profound implications for any attempt to combine these services within a single structure.”
• “Before turning to emerging reforms, it is essential to understand the legal and ethical architecture that underpins the status quo in most US jurisdictions. The traditional regulatory framework governing the legal profession was designed to protect clients and uphold professional integrity, but it also creates formidable roadblocks for CPA firms exploring multidisciplinary practice models. Four core restrictions are particularly consequential: the prohibition on non-lawyer ownership and fee-sharing under Rule 5.4, the ban on the UPL, the limited scope of attorney-client privilege in hybrid services, and the heightened risk of conflicts of interest in dual-role relationships. Discussed below, these longstanding rules shape not only what services can be delivered, but also how they are structured, staffed, and marketed.”
• “Conflicts of interest are magnified when professionals wear more than one hat. Lawyers owe clients a fiduciary duty of loyalty and confidentiality. CPAs must adhere to independence standards, especially in audit settings. [See, for example, Model Rules of Pro. Conduct r. 1.7 (ABA 2023), conflicts of interest with current clients and r. 1.10, imputation of conflicts within a firm; and AICPA, Code of Professional Conduct, §§ 1.200.001 & 1.210.010 (2023), establishing independence requirements for CPAs providing attest services, which may conflict with concurrent legal representation.] In multidisciplinary firms, these duties can collide—particularly if one branch of the firm is providing attest services while another offers legal advice in a matter involving the same client. The absence of clear conflict resolution frameworks for MDPs makes regulators cautious and exposes firms to ethics complaints and malpractice risks.”
• “As shown in Exhibit 4, New York and Florida continue to follow traditional rules that strictly limit dual roles. Even if technically allowed, lawyers must avoid blurring the lines between legal advice and other professional services. Arizona and Utah, by contrast, are pioneering MDP-friendly models, with rules designed to allow for conflicts to be identified, disclosed, and ethically waived through compliance programs. For best practice, practitioners should always provide clear written disclosures when acting in multiple roles, obtain client consent, and avoid representing parties with adverse interests—regardless of licensure status.”
• “Despite the formal prohibitions on nonlawyer ownership and fee sharing in most US jurisdictions, professional service firms have long explored creative structures to deliver integrated legal and nonlegal services. These ‘structural workarounds’ aim to capture the client-service benefits of an MDP while nominally adhering to state bar restrictions on the unauthorized practice of law and Rule 5.4 compliance. Conrad J. Jacoby’s ‘Practice Innovations: Non-lawyer Ownership of Law Firms — Are Winds of Change Coming for Rule 5.4?’ examines recent developments in several US states regarding non-lawyer ownership of law firms, (Thomson Reuters, Mar. 29, 2022, https://tinyurl.com/47ujczh7). It is critical to note, however, that while these structures may address rules on ownership and fee-sharing, they cannot resolve the fundamental ethical conflict between a lawyer’s duty of advocacy and an auditor’s duty of independence.”
• “One common workaround involves the formation of two separate, but closely affiliated, entities: a law firm and a CPA or consulting firm, typically under common ownership or management. The law firm provides legal services exclusively through licensed attorneys, while the affiliated firm offers tax, accounting, or advisory services. Although the entities are formally distinct, they often operate from the same location and serve overlapping clients.”
• “To navigate these risks, firms often rely upon careful scoping language in engagement letters to delineate which entity is providing which services (Susan Saab Fortney, ‘The Role of Ethics Audits in Improving Management Systems and Practices: An Empirical Examination of Management-Based Regulation of Law Firms,’ St. Mary’s Journal of Legal Malpractice & Ethics, vol. 4, pp. 112–144, 2014). For example, a CPA firm’s engagement may explicitly disclaim legal advice, while referring legal questions to the affiliated law firm. Such formal separation is essential not only for regulatory compliance, but also for preserving privilege and avoiding conflicts of interest. [see United States v. Kovel, 296 F.2d 918, 922 (2d Cir. 1961); United States v. Richey, 632 F.3d 559 (9th Cir. 2011)].”
• “These structural strategies reflect the growing pressure on professional firms to deliver seamless, multi-disciplinary solutions, despite a regulatory framework that remains wedded to siloed practice models. Whether courts and regulators will continue to tolerate such workarounds—or move to close them—remains an open question, particularly in light of emerging reforms in Utah, Arizona, and abroad.”
• “The longstanding prohibition on MDPs in most US jurisdictions—rooted in Rule 5.4 and traditional notions of lawyer independence—has imposed real limitations on CPA firms seeking to expand into legal services. These restrictions have created a fragmented regulatory environment, deterring innovation and leading many firms to adopt workaround structures that raise their own risks, including potential violations of UPL laws, erosion of privilege protections, and conflicts of interest.”
• “Yet the regulatory landscape is beginning to shift. States like Utah and Arizona have pioneered new models through sandbox regimes and ABS licensing, while internationally the United Kingdom and Australia have long embraced integrated professional service models. These developments signal a growing recognition that rigid silos between professions may no longer serve clients or the public interest in a global, fast-moving advisory marketplace. Ultimately, any successful reform must not only address the structural rules like ABA Model Rule 5.4, but also create coherent frameworks for managing the foundational ethical conflict between a lawyer’s duty of zealous advocacy and an auditor’s duty of independence and skepticism. Navigating this divide remains the central challenge for the future of MDPs in the United States.”
• “For CPA firms considering entry into legal services, the path forward demands strategic evaluation. Firms must assess their risk exposure under current laws, maintain clear ethical boundaries between legal and non-legal services, and ensure that operational models do not inadvertently trigger UPL or privilege waiver issues. At the same time, they should actively monitor state-level reform efforts and be ready to pivot if and when new opportunities emerge.”
• “Ultimately, the convergence of law and accounting is no longer a theoretical debate: it is an unfolding reality. Firms that understand the regulatory terrain and plan proactively will be best positioned to navigate the evolving frontier of MDP services.”

“Former FirstEnergy lawyer says he was troubled by Randazzo agreement” —

• “A former lawyer for FirstEnergy said he wasn’t sure why the company agreed to pay Sam Randazzo hundreds of thousands of dollars each year for five years. Mark Hayden formerly worked as an attorney at FirstEnergy Services Co., a subsidiary of the Akron-based electric utility, supporting the parent company’s former FirstEnergy Solutions power generation subsidiary.”
• “Hayden testified Feb. 9 that he held ‘a number of concerns’ in the 2010s about an agreement that FirstEnergy Services Company had with Sam Randazzo, who at the time was a prominent attorney in the energy space. Later, in 2019, Randazzo became chair of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, a state regulatory agency.”
• “Ex-FirstEnergy Senior Vice President Michael Dowling and former FirstEnergy CEO Chuck Jones are accused of bribing Randazzo in their ongoing criminal trial. Randazzo was a defendant in the case before he died in 2024.”
• “For a time, Hayden said, he approved the monthly FirstEnergy Services payments to Sustainability Funding Alliance of Ohio, a shell company that Randazzo owned and controlled.”
• “Testifying as a witness for the prosecution, Hayden said he, Dowling and others at FirstEnergy who worked with Randazzo knew about what the utility called a consulting agreement with Randazzo.”
• “Hayden, who objected to being photographed or recorded in court, said he had numerous issues with the agreement.”
• “For one, Hayden said Randazzo appeared to have a conflict of interest. The utility paid Randazzo at least $25,000 per month while Randazzo represented energy trade group Industrial Energy Users of Ohio, which purchased electricity and generally had different interests than FirstEnergy, Hayden said.”
• “Additionally, Hayden said, the background and purpose of the agreement was not clear to him. And Hayden said Randazzo would reach out to employees of FirstEnergy Solutions ‘as an attorney, knowing that those individuals were represented by counsel.'”
• “The defense contends that the consulting agreement was a legal settlement between FirstEnergy and Industrial Energy Users of Ohio.”
• “In his opening statement on Feb. 3, Assistant Ohio Attorney General Matthew Meyer called the consulting agreement a ‘magic paper’ that the defendants used to create a distraction and conceal the flow of FirstEnergy funds.”
• “Meyer asked Hayden if he had ever seen a settlement in any other context that’s called a ‘consulting agreement.’ Hayden said no.”
• “In an email exchange between Hayden and Dowling presented as a trial exhibit, Hayden expressed his frustration to Dowling about Randazzo’s involvement in FirstEnergy affairs.”
• “Dowling said in an email to Hayden that ‘this has been a problem for more than a decade and probably longer.'”
• “Stamboulidis asked Hayden if Dowling’s statement was in response to Hayden’s concern about Randazzo being a consultant for FirstEnergy Solutions. Hayden said he was generally concerned about the relationship that Randazzo had with the company.”

“Small Deal Won, Big Deal Lost: Inside Big Law’s Eternal Conflicts Dilemma” —

• “Conflicts of interest are a fact of life in legal practice, but they can bite in the most painful places if a firm finds itself conflicted out of big ticket work. There was initial surprise that Linklaters was absent from the recently abortive £260 billion Glencore and Rio Tinto merger talks; according to insiders, the firm was conflicted out, having had to balance its relationships with other major mining companies such as Anglo American.”
• “Though the exact nature of the conflict is unclear, it got the market talking. Here we had a potential £260 billion M&A transaction—before it was halted, it had the makings of the largest transaction anywhere in the world. Ever. Missing out on such a deal can cost a firm in more ways than one: not just in terms of the current fee opportunity, but future opportunities too, with the relationship possibly passing into the hands of a rival.”
• “As consolidation in the market increases, conflicts will inevitably increase in complexity and magnitude. How firms navigate them could be hugely consequential for specific practices but also for the wider firm.”
• “One partner at a top 20 U.K. firm disclosed that they had three deals cancelled already this year due to conflicts; it was simply a fact they had to accept.”
• “Firms have to take precautions to avoid them—not doing so could be costly.”
  “One of the most high-profile conflicts in living memory occurred in 2004 when Slaughter and May successfully obtained an injunction blocking Freshfields from acting for Phillip Green in his £9 billion bid for Marks & Spencer. Freshfields faced a potential conflict as it had previously worked for M&S; the firm argued that it would be able to use a ‘chinese-wall’ during the takeover, a decision the judges called ‘wholly improbable’. Twenty-two years on, and the matter is still remembered, particularly among long-standing City M&A partners.”
• “At most large firms, every new instruction is routed through a dedicated conflicts team, sources say. Teams at multinational firms run 24/7. In the most complicated cases, the question may be kicked upstairs to the conflicts committee or the general counsel. The conflicts committee differs at each firm but generally includes practice heads and senior lawyers deciding the best route for firms to take.”
• “Different jurisdictions are taken into account; conflict laws in the U.S. for instance are more restrictive than those in the U.K.”
• “One partner told Law.com that the worst-case scenario is if a partner gets an opportunity to do some work on a smaller matter, and then the firm is offered the bigger mandate which they then have to turn down. They pointed to finance agreements as being particularly irksome if a big-ticket deal is blocked by some earlier agreement for which the firm was paid a relatively small fee—as little as $3,000, one partner said.”
• “Another senior partner in London at a leading U.S. firm said: ‘Small matters that you take on that then conflicts you out of some big-ticket M&A can be frustrating.’ The partner suggested that one partner trying to hit their targets can then scupper a much bigger, more profitable deal that would benefit the wider firm. ‘What [the firm] can do is it can encourage discipline and good behaviour from its partners, not just thinking of themselves, but thinking of the firm.'”
• While magic circle firms may be more conservative with a centralised system, one partner at a U.S. firm described as a ‘hub and spoke system’, the partner saw U.S. firms as more individualistic and ‘aggressive’ in taking on matters that may eventually lead to conflict risks down the line.”
• “Every partner is under pressure within their firm to bring in their own business. But not all work is created equal.”
  One partner said: ‘It is important that partners are thinking firm first and not just about what’s on their plate.'”
• “A private equity partner placed emphasis on the fact that you not only had to manage relationships between the firm and its clients when it came to conflicts, but between lawyers too, which could be just as complex.”
• “An alternative to flat refusing a deal is to set out to the client as clearly as possible what the firm is able to guarantee and when the firm may act against them. One partner said: ‘If your engagement letter is clear, then you shouldn’t have any issues.'”
  “Partitioning is also a tactic often used by firms to avoid conflicts. By guaranteeing to the client that one team will never see the work that conflicts with the matter, this can serve as a method to ensure the firm can deliver the work. However, this must be established from the start and have client approval from the engagement letter.”

“In pitch-rigging case, Guardians pitcher seeks to shift more blame onto teammate” —

• “In a sign of a growing fissure between two Cleveland Guardians pitchers facing charges tied to a pitch-rigging scheme that benefited gamblers, a lawyer for Luis Ortiz said his client was among those duped by teammate and co-defendant Emmanuel Clase.”
• “In a legal filing unsealed on Monday, in which Ortiz’s representatives asked a federal judge to sever the cases so they could proceed separately, attorney Christos N. Georgalis emphasized the difference in scale between the two pitchers’ alleged participation in the operation. Georgalis characterized Ortiz as ‘a victim of Clase’s scheme, rather than a knowing and willing participant.'”
• “Though the November indictment that brought four federal charges against Clase described nine suspicious pitches he allegedly threw as part of the gambling scheme, prosecutors have opened the possibility that there are more. Attorneys for the government told a federal judge last month they still may identify other pitches and that their investigation is still ongoing. By contrast, Ortiz was accused of rigging two pitches in the indictment and prosecutors said that number has not changed.”
• “Georgalis also cited a potential conflict of interest as justification for severing the cases. The filings detail Clase’s attorneys interviewing witnesses who denied the existence of a betting scheme, but at least one of whom is expected to testify otherwise, according to prosecutors. Even after he was made aware by a judge that the potential conflict of interest could limit how his attorneys question the witnesses they had previously interviewed, Clase elected to stay with his lawyers.”
• “Ortiz’s attorney raised the possibility of serving as a ‘second prosecutor’ and calling Clase’s lawyers to the stand in defense of his client — which he said is an option only if the cases are separated.”
• “One of Ortiz’s ‘likely defenses,’ Georgalis wrote in the filing, is that Clase supplied Ortiz’s pitching strategy to the bettors without his teammate’s knowledge. That approach, Georgalis wrote, ‘is mutually antagonistic to Mr. Clase’s claim of innocence.'”
• “The scheme involved pitchers allegedly predetermining the results of prop bets, as outlined in a 23-page indictment unsealed in November. According to that filing, the ploy netted gamblers winnings of $460,000.”
• “Martin S. Bell, an attorney at Simpson Thatcher and a former federal prosecutor, said there are several reasons why Ortiz could want to sever his case from Clase. Doing so might help Ortiz avoid being prejudiced by the evidence against Clase. The move would also give Ortiz a chance to litigate his case after the government presents their case against Clase at trial, which could be an advantage.”
• “But Bell also noted that, while Ortiz and Clase could still cooperate together in their defense, Ortiz shifting blame to his former teammate also indicates that the parties may be at odds.”
• “‘It’s an interesting posture to be in where you’ve got defendants who are still, in a very important way, sort of on the same boat, but for purposes of this motion, and very possibly for purposes of the practical conduct of a trial, now find themselves, at the very least, on opposite ends with that same boat,’ Bell said. ‘And the question is going to be, is is that boat shaped in such a way that the judge is going to say, ‘Hey, an actual unwarranted injustice would result for making them both go through the trial in that same boat?’'”

“Cadwalader Trial Leaders Resign After Hogan Conflicts Review” —

• “Cadwalader litigation practice leaders Nicholas Gravante and Phil Iovieno resigned on Friday due to conflicts of interest with clients of the firm’s partner in a planned merger, Hogan Lovells.”
• “Litigators Sean O’Shea, Michael Petrella and Matthew Karlan are also leaving, along with corporate partner Nick Ramphal, according to internal emails reviewed by Bloomberg Law. Friday was also their last day, and there’s no word on the six lawyers’ next moves. They didn’t answer comment requests.”
• “Cadwalader said in a statement that the firm expected a few conflicts of interest ‘would be inevitable in the process of creating a global firm with more than 3,100 lawyers.’ It added that ‘we are disappointed that our colleagues will not be a part of the combined firm, but the interests of the clients come first.’ Hogan Lovells declined to comment.”
• “The departures solidify Cadwalader’s shift in focus to complex finance work from litigation as a result of the coming merger. The firms in December announced their plan to create Hogan Lovells Cadwalader, a giant that will generate enough revenue to likely place it among the five largest US firms.”
• “Gravante and some colleagues understood they wouldn’t be able to stay at the firm after a Hogan Lovells merger because of conflicts, according to a person familiar with the matter, who requested anonymity to discuss the departures. Gravante and Iovieno have represented meat buyers in price fixing litigation against meat industry companies that include Hogan clients, the person said.”
• “Hogan CEO Miguel Zaldivar cited Cadwalader’s ‘top of the market finance capabilities’ and growing in New York as his motivation for pursuing the Cadwalader merger. In an interview with the American Lawyer, Zaldivar said partners who Hogan identified as key to the merger, like those who control the bank relationships and sources of revenue, are staying.”

“Judicial Ethics Opinion 25-130” —

• “A judge who receives an insurance reserve balance payment from the judge’s former law firm is disqualified for two years from all cases involving the firm. The two-year period commences from the date of payment. The disqualification is subject to remittal.”

“Judicial Ethics Opinion 25-131” —

• “A judge need not disqualify from a case involving child endangerment charges merely because (a) the judge’s child knows the subject child, (b) the judge’s close friend is engaged to a witness in the case, and (c) the judge recently disqualified him/herself in a different case on other grounds.”

“NY judge took vacations with lawyers, was in text thread filled with ‘off-color jokes,’ ‘sexually graphic images’: officials” —

• “A New York judge took Caribbean vacations with a group of attorneys and engaged in a text message chain featuring ‘off-color jokes’ and ‘sexually graphic images’ with them — helping fuel her hasty retirement, court officials said.”
• “Rockland County Supreme Court Justice Sherri Eisenpress agreed to step down on April 28 over multiple alleged conflicts of interest, the state Commission of Judicial Conduct said Monday.”
• “The CJC said Eisenpress failed to disclose her close personal relationships with the group of attorneys, even as she heard their cases in her courtroom, violating laws that judges must be impartial.”
• “The half dozen lawyers argued in front of Eisenpress between 2019 and 2024 — when they all also traveled to the Dominican Republic, Mexico and the Jersey Shore together at various times, according to the commission.”
  he women were also on a text chain at various times titled ‘Punta Cana Partiers,’ Bougie B*tches’ and ‘Queen Dara and Her Loyal Subjects,’ in reference to the court’s principal attorney, who conducts research, analysis and drafts opinion for judges.”
• “‘[Eisenpress] and the members of the group text message chain … shared confidences and discussed and shared social and travel plans and invitations, gossip, photos, off-color jokes, and sexually graphic images,’ the CJC wrote, outlining its misconduct allegations.”
• “The alleged conflicts didn’t stop there for Eisenpress, who went from family court to state Supreme Court justice during her 15 years on the bench.”
• “Eisenpress was accused of presiding over 41 cases involving the law firm of her principal law clerk’s spouse, while declining to acknowledge the ties or to limit the top aide’s work on those cases, the commission said.”
• “She also handled a matrimonial case in which the lawyer for one of the spouses was co-hosting a fundraiser for Eisenpress’ election campaign — and only recused herself after the opposing counsel called her out, according to the commission.”
• “In 2024, Eisenpress allegedly refused to immediately recuse herself from a case in which her law clerk’s husband represented one of the parties, the CJC said. She later stepped aside for unrelated reasons.”
• “Eisenpress lauded her time on the bench in her resignation letter to Chief Administrative Judge Joseph Zayas on Jan. 29.”
• “‘During my tenure, I was mindful of the responsibility that comes with expanding access to justice and strengthening public trust in the court,’ she said.”

“Johnson & Johnson’s Win Boots Beasley Allen from Talc Suits” —

• “Litigation firm Beasley Allen must stop representing plaintiffs suing Johnson & Johnson over exposure to talc products, a New Jersey state court ruled Friday in a landmark ethics decision.”
• “The ‘prolonged access to J&J’s privileged information, followed by collaborative efforts with its most prominent adversary, leaves us with clear concern for the preservation of trust intrinsic to the attorney-client relationship,’ Superior Court Appellate Division Judge Mark K. Chase wrote Friday.”
• “The ruling validates the pharma giant’s multi-year push to exclude one of the top firms bringing cases in a $22 billion fight over claims that asbestos in talc products contributed to plaintiffs’ vaginal cancer. The parties are awaiting a similar ruling on this issue in the US District Court for the District of New Jersey, and an appeal to the New Jersey Supreme Court is expected.”
• “‘‘Switching sides’ against a former client does not present a close call—but rather a bright-line ethical prohibition recognized by every court, every ethics authority, and, frankly, every first-year law student,’ Erik Haas, Johnson & Johnson’s worldwide vice president of litigation, said in a statement.”
• “The appeals court ruled that former Sidley Austin attorney James Conlan ‘associated’ with the Beasley Allen during a mediation over J&J’s bankruptcy plans. Despite Conlan was acting as a nonlawyer on behalf of his mass tort consulting business Legacy Liability Solutions, there was a clear conflict warranting kicking Beasley Allen out of the litigation where it’s one of the top players.”
• “‘It is clear Conlan and Beasley Allen worked together over several months by ‘join[ing] or unit[ing]’ with Conlan for the same common purpose, to have the matter resolved by structural optimization,’ Chase said. ‘Thus, Beasley Allen associated with Legacy and Conlan for purposes’ of New Jersey ethics standards.”
• “Beasley Allen’s lawyer Jeffrey Pollock promised an appeal. Since this is a published opinion, the New Jersey Supreme Court is rule-bound to review the decision.”
• “‘We respectfully but vehemently disagree with the Court’s analysis and its conclusions,’ Pollock, managing member of Pollock Law LLC, said in an email. ‘This Opinion re-writes the Rules of Professional Conduct and cannot stand.'”
• “At oral argument in January, J&J said keeping Beasley Allen in the mix would send a broader message to the legal community that there are loopholes: lawyers like Conlan—who had insider information central to J&J’s defense—could somehow find ways to work with the very firms now suing his former client.”
• “Even though the rules aren’t as strict for non-attorneys, the court said this behavior would interfere with clients ability to retain the lawyer of their choosing and entrust them with confidential information.”
• “‘Beasley Allen knowingly collaborated with Conlan on the same issue and in the same litigation that Conlan represented its adversary—J&J. ‘The rules of professional behavior are not branches which bend and sway in the winds of the job market’ but are instead ‘the bedrock of professional conduct,’’ Chase said, quoting state high court precedent.”

“Huitron v. Toby (Ga. 2026): Potential Appellate-Counsel Office Conflicts Require Proof of a Specific, Adversely Affected Appellate Decision” —

• “Huitron v. Toby, Warden arises from Alexandro Huitron’s habeas challenge to his convictions for felony murder and related offenses connected to the death of his three-year-old daughter, Esmerelda Gomez. After the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the convictions on direct appeal in Gomez v. State, 301 Ga. 445 (2017), Huitron filed a habeas petition alleging, among other things, that his appellate counsel (John Kraus) labored under a conflict of interest.”
• “The claimed conflict stemmed from office affiliation: Kraus worked in the Clayton County Public Defender’s Office, and that same office represented Huitron’s co-defendant and wife, Margarita Gomez, at their joint trial. Huitron contended that this relationship prevented Kraus from investigating and litigating a more forceful ‘Gomez-did-it’ theory via an ineffective-assistance claim against trial counsel, including by calling Gomez to testify at the motion-for-new-trial stage.”
• “The central legal issue was not whether the office relationship created any professional tension, but whether Huitron proved an actual conflict of interest that significantly and adversely affected appellate counsel’s performance—entitling him to a new, conflict-free direct appeal.”
• “The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the denial of habeas relief. Even assuming a potential conflict existed, the Court held the habeas record supported the finding that the alleged conflict did not significantly and adversely affect Kraus’s appellate representation. Critically, Huitron failed to connect the alleged conflict to a concrete, foregone, potentially meritorious appellate action—such as a specific ineffective-assistance theory that Kraus declined to raise because of divided loyalties.”
• “The Court emphasized that Georgia conflict-of-interest ineffectiveness claims turn on whether the conflict palpably affected performance, not on abstract office relationships or speculative assertions that counsel felt ‘hamstrung.'”

David Kluft asks: “Do I have a duty to Google the opposing party?” —

• “A NJ/MI attorney admitted pro hac vice in E.D. PA brought a 1983 Civil Rights Action against Valley Forge Military Academy on behalf of a student who was expelled following an alleged sexual assault. The problem was that the defendant is obviously not a government actor, so a 1983 action was not appropriate.”
• “Even after the defendant informed him of this, he waited months before amending it into a Title IX claim, in the meantime forcing the defendant to file a motion to dismiss a claim everyone knew was frivolous.”
• “The attorney claimed that the error was not his fault but was the result of his staff checking the wrong box on the intake form. He relied entirely on the intake form rather than doing any research or apparently even meeting with his own client.”
• “The Court held that ‘basic due diligence’ requires at a minimum, ‘having direct contact with the client and conducting a simple Google search’ on the defendant.”
• “Unhappy that the lawyer ‘could not even be bothered to Google search the Defendant,’ the Court further explained how easy it would have been, noting that ‘upon launching Defendant’s website, it becomes immediately apparent that Defendant is a private institution. Indeed, one need not even open their website, as Google’s website preview says as much.'”
• “The Court sanctioned the lawyer over $5k in attorneys’ fees and ordered CLE classes for him and his staff (the sanction was for this misconduct as well as for not sufficiently anonymizing the sexual assault victim’s name). The Court honored his request to sanction him under its inherent authority and not Rule 11 because the lawyer did one thing right – he accepted all the blame and exonerated local counsel.”
• Order: here.

“Kirkland Resignation Highlights Potential Business Conflicts in Big Law Between PE, Company Representations” —

• “Kirkland & Ellis has parted ways with client Optimum Communications after the telecommunications company sued a group of major leveraged finance players for alleged antitrust violations. It’s at least the second time since 2020 that Kirkland has split with a client that was in a feud with the law firm’s larger, more profitable clients in private capital.”
• “The developments highlight the potential business conflicts that any firm can encounter between its company-side representation and private equity representation.”
• “But for Kirkland especially, the stakes are high, with its PE clients providing significant business for the firm and supporting the firm’s rapid growth in the past two decades, helping Kirkland become the largest firm in the world by revenue. At the same time, Kirkland has a large company-side representation practice in restructuring matters, and it’s one of the top firms in representing Chapter 11 debtors.”
• “Kirkland & Ellis didn’t represent Optimum in the antitrust litigation against the leverage finance clients—lawyers at Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick did. Kirkland represented Optimum in a transactional matter last year.”
• “However, some members of the creditor group had privately accused Kirkland of being involved in the antitrust lawsuit, according to media reports.”
• “One source familiar with the matter said that accusation may have stemmed from Kirkland debt finance partner David Nemecek’s comments at Bloomberg’s Global Credit Forum last year, where Nemecek raised antitrust concerns over credit market cooperation agreements. Nemecek didn’t immediately return a message seeking comment.”
• “The split with Optimum Communications was reported by the Wall Street Journal on Monday. Sources confirmed Kirkland was the party to initiate the split.”
• “In a statement to Law.com, Optimum said: ‘We do not expect this change to affect our ability to engage with our creditors. We remain focused on taking steps to ensure we have a capital structure that supports the long-term health of the business and intend to retain new legal counsel in the near-term.'”
• “While a Kirkland representative didn’t immediately reply to a message seeking comment, a firm representative told the Journal that the firm ‘does not sue clients and did not here’ and had no role in preparing the lawsuit, ‘which was underway before the firm started working for the company.”
• “Rather, the firm ‘did this to dissociate from the lawsuit.’ It also alluded to an increased emphasis on discipline in its liability management practice, which will continue ‘in ways consistent with market practices, in contrast to hyper-aggressive tactics.'”

For more, see: “Star Kirkland & Ellis partner’s future in doubt as firm sides with PE in legal tactics dispute.“

“Double duty by attorney fails to void settlement” —

• “A defendant employer could not extricate itself from an otherwise fair global settlement on the basis that the plaintiffs’ counsel should not have been allowed to represent both a class and individual plaintiffs in litigation against it, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed.”
• “The challenge inherent in simultaneously representing a class and individual plaintiffs is a ‘matter pertinent to counsel’s ability to fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class’ that Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows courts to consider, noted Judge William J. Kayatta Jr., writing for the panel.”
• “The defendant employer argued that the trial judge should have withheld approval of the class action settlement due to what it viewed as the plaintiffs’ counsel’s disqualifying conflict: his duty to maximize recovery for members of the class as well as the three individual plaintiffs.”
• “‘Leading treatises appear to be split on the question of whether counsel may concurrently represent individual plaintiffs and a class against the same defendants,’ Kayatta wrote, adding that the panel had found ‘no on-point case law in this circuit or in others’ addressing such an arrangement.”
• “However, the panel said it was significant that it was not reviewing the decision to appoint class counsel in the first instance under Rule 23(g) but rather whether a class action settlement was properly approved under Rule 23(e)(2).”
• “The inquiry under Rule 23(e)(2) called for a ‘retrospective assessment of counsel’s representation,’ and there was no evidence that the class members had been prejudiced by their attorney pulling double duty, the panel determined.”
• “‘As the district court explained, class counsel’s actual performance offers not a hint of any conflict-induced shortfall in the adequacy of his representation of the class,’ Kayatta wrote.”
• “Not only did the lawyer secure recoveries for each class member that exceeded the total damages they had suffered, but the excess over the actual damages they stood to receive compared favorably to the average excess received by the three individual plaintiffs, the panel pointed out.”
• “The plaintiffs’ attorney had also highlighted his representation of the three individual plaintiffs in the written notice of the settlement that he sent to the 43 class members, and none opted out or voiced any objection, the panel said.”
• “If the settlement were unwound, there was no reason to think the class members would be better off, according to the panel”
• “‘Like the district court, we see no reason why this actual result must be cast aside — at the behest of [the defendants] and without a hint of dissatisfaction from the class itself — merely because there was the potential for a different result that was never realized,’ Kayatta wrote.”
• “The 32-page decision is Mongue v. The Wheatleigh Corporation, et al., Lawyers Weekly No. 01-011-26.”

“Thomson Geer to sell stake in Labor lobby shop TG Public over conflict fears” —

• “[Australia’s Seventh Largest Law Firm] Thomson Geer has decided to sell its stake in a major Labor-aligned lobby group to soothe fears that the pair’s current relationship could endanger the lucrative flow of government work that the national law firm has recently added to its books.”
• “However, the law firm and lobby group will continue to co-operate under a ‘strategic agreement’, a move Thomson Geer hopes will reduce the potential for conflicts of interest when its lawyers represent the Commonwealth, a work stream worth tens of millions to Thomson Geer annually.”
• “‘There are some conflict sensitivities which have caused us reluctantly to divest our stake in TG Public. We’ll continue to collaborate with TG Public but outside those areas,’ Thomson Geer chief executive partner Adrian Tembel said.”
• “The divestment comes after Thomson Geer absorbed the entire Canberra office of rival firm Ashurst last year, adding seven partners who specialise in acting for the federal government and who have transplanted their Commonwealth matters and billings to Thomson Geer.”
• “‘Unfortunately, due to entering the Commonwealth law market very significantly last year through the Ashurst acquisition, we’ve had to reassess our priorities and our conflict position,’ Tembel said. ‘We’ve prioritised the Commonwealth, obviously.'”
• “According to AusTender, a public record of government contracts, Thomson Geer’s most valuable Commonwealth client is the Department of Defence, worth over $10 million in billings for the 2025-26 financial year to date. The firm has also won work from the Australian Submarine Agency, for which it is charging some $2.5 million for legal services.”
• “A slew of Thomson Geer’s ex-Ashurst partners, including Steve McKinney, Sarah Ross-Smith and Angela Summersby, are longtime Canberra favourites in public sector procurement and acquisition matters. TG Public Affairs, meanwhile, has a major roster of defence-sector clients, including German shipbuilder TKMS, US defence firm Northrop Grumman and Swedish contractor Saab.”
• “Representatives of Thomson Geer and TG Public Affairs would not comment on what kinds of conflict sensitivity animated the law firm’s decision to divest.”
  “Thomson Geer’s other major Commonwealth clients include the Department of Finance, which it billed at least $6 million in 2025-26, and the Department of Employment, which is paying the firm $2.5 million. In total, Thomson Geer has signed more than 110 legal services contracts with the Commonwealth in 2025-26 so far, for billings of at least $27 million.”

“New Postmark Rule = New Malpractice Exposure” —

• “For years a postmark would reliably document the date you mailed something, but not anymore. As of December 24, 2025, those glory days have passed due to recent USPS operational changes, and the USPS has formally acknowledged this. These changes create real malpractice exposure anywhere a statute, rule, or agency treats a postmark as proof of timely filing. In response, you should now assume that a postmark may be one or more days late, especially in rural areas, and adjust your internal practices accordingly.”
• “Since 2021, USPS has been consolidating nearly 200 local processing centers into about 60 large regional hubs, while also reducing the number of daily dispatches from local post offices. USPS has now codified in its Domestic Mail Manual that a postmark ‘does not inherently or necessarily align’ with the date a piece of mail was deposited. This is not a small operational tweak; it fundamentally breaks the decades‑long assumption that a postmark is reliable evidence of mailing.”
• “Mail used to be processed locally, often the same day it was dropped off. Now mail from many communities will travel hundreds of miles to a regional processing center before receiving a postmark. In fact, ten states will now have 100% of their mail processed out of state. (e.g., Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming, and Mississippi)”
• “Under the new Regional Transportation Optimization (RTO) schedule, post offices more than 50 miles from a processing center now send outgoing mail once per day, typically early morning. Anything dropped off after that cutoff may not begin its journey until the next day.”
• “Taken together, these changes mean a letter dropped off on a Monday afternoon may not be postmarked until Tuesday or Wednesday despite being timely mailed and the postal service acknowledges that this is to now be an expected outcome, not an anomaly.”
• “If a lawyer mails something on time but receives a late postmark, they may still be held responsible for an untimely filing, which means the malpractice exposure from a missed deadline is very real. Making matters worse: rural lawyers and clients are going to be disproportionately affected. Fortunately, there are steps you can take to reduce the risk:”
• “First, make sure that everyone at your firm understands that ‘mailed today’ does not mean ‘postmarked today.'”
• “Second, use electronic filing whenever possible. If something must be sent through the mail, go to the counter and request a hand‑stamped postmark; and never cut it close without first making sure the local post office is going to be open.”
• “Third, consider using a priority mail service that provides tracking and timestamped acceptance.”
• “And finally, if you’d like to know more about the changes USPS has made and the impact on lawyers, I strongly encourage you to read what Brookings has reported at https://www.brookings.edu/articles/when-a-postmark-no-longer-tracks-mailing/ “